Republic of the Philippines FOUNDATION, Petitioners,
SUPREME COURT vs.
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 177271             May 4, 2007
BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941,
represented by MR. AMEURFINO E. CINCO,
Chairman, AND URBAN POOR FOR LEGAL REFORMS
(UP-LR), represented by MRS. MYRNA P. PORCARE,
Secretary-General, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BIYAHENG PINOY,
KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKAKULONG NA WALANG
SALA (KAKUSA), BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR
NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
(BANAT), AHON PINOY, AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
ALLIANCE OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (AGAP),
PUWERSA NG BAYANING ATLETA (PBA), ALYANSA
NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG AGHAM AT
TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA MAMAMAYAN, INC.
(AGHAM), BABAE PARA SA KAUNLARAN (BABAE
KA), AKSYON SAMBAYANAN (AKSA), ALAY SA
BAYAN NG MALAYANG PROPESYUNAL AT
REPORMANG KALAKAL (ABAY-PARAK), AGBIAG
TIMPUYOG ILOCANO, INC. (AGBIAG!), ABANTE
ILONGGO, INC. (ABA ILONGGO), AANGAT TAYO (AT),
AANGAT ANG KABUHAYAN (ANAK), BAGO
NATIONAL CULTURAL SOCIETY OF THE
PHILIPPINES (BAGO), ANGAT ANTAS-KABUHAYAN
PILIPINO MOVEMENT (AANGAT KA PILIPINO), ARTS
BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONAL (ABS),
ASSOSASYON NG MGA MALILIIT NA NEGOSYANTENG
GUMAGANAP INC. (AMANG), SULONG BARANGAY
MOVEMENT, KASOSYO PRODUCERS CONSUMER
EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION, INC. (KASOSYO), UNITED
MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS (UNI-MAD), PARENTS
ENABLING PARENTS (PEP), ALLIANCE OF NEO-
CONSERVATIVES (ANC), FILIPINOS FOR PEACE,
JUSTICE AND PROGRESS MOVEMENT (FPJPM),
BIGKIS PINOY MOVEMENT (BIGKIS), 1-UNITED
TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UNTAK), ALLIANCE FOR
BARANGAY CONCERNS (ABC), BIYAYANG BUKID,
INC., ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND
DEMOCRACY (ANAD), AKBAY PINOY OFW-
NATIONAL INC., (APOI), ALLIANCE TRANSPORT
SECTOR (ATS), KALAHI SECTORAL PARTY
(ADVOCATES FOR OVERSEAS FILIPINO) AND
ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATORS,
PROFESSIONALS AND SENIORS (AAPS), Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 177314             May 4, 2007
REP. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, KILOSBAYAN
FOUNDATION, BANTAY KATARUNGAN
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
DECISION
GARCIA, J.:
Before the Court are these two consolidated petitions
for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and set aside
certain issuances of the Commission on Elections
(Comelec) respecting party-list groups which have
manifested their intention to participate in the party-list
elections on May 14, 2007.
In the first petition, docketed as G.R. No. 177271,
petitioners Bantay Republic Act (BA-RA 7941, for short)
and the Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR, for short)
assail the various Comelec resolutions accrediting
private respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate
in the forthcoming party-list elections on May 14, 2007
without simultaneously determining whether or not
their respective nominees possess the requisite
qualifications defined in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or
the "Party-List System Act" and belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented sector each seeks
to represent. In the second, docketed as G.R. No.
177314, petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales, Kilosbayan
Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation impugn
Comelec Resolution 07-0724 dated April 3, 2007
effectively denying their request for the release or
disclosure of the names of the nominees of the fourteen
(14) accredited participating party-list groups
mentioned in petitioner Rosales’ previous letter-
request.
While both petitions commonly seek to compel the
Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the
nominees of the various party-list groups named in the
petitions,1 the petitioners in G.R. No. 177271 have the
following additional prayers: 1) that the 33 private
respondents named therein be "declare[d] as
unqualified to participate in the party-list elections as
sectoral organizations, parties or coalition for failure to
comply with the guidelines prescribed by the [Court] in
[Ang Bagong Bayani v. Comelec2]" and, 2)
correspondingly, that the Comelec be enjoined from
allowing respondent groups from participating in the
May 2007 elections.
In separate resolutions both dated April 24, 2007, the
Court en banc required the public and private
respondents to file their respective comments on the
petitions within a non-extendible period of five (5) days
from notice. Apart from respondent Comelec, seven (7)
private respondents3 in G.R. No. 177271 and one party-
list group4 mentioned in G.R. No. 177314 submitted
their separate comments. In the main, the separate
comments of the private respondents focused on the
untenability and prematurity of the plea of petitioners
BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR to nullify their accreditation as
party-list groups and thus disqualify them and their
respective nominees from participating in the May 14,
2007 party-list elections.
The facts:
On January 12, 2007, the Comelec issued Resolution No.
7804 prescribing rules and regulations to govern the
filing of manifestation of intent to participate and
submission of names of nominees under the party-list
system of representation in connection with the May 14,
2007 elections. Pursuant thereto, a number of
organized groups filed the necessary manifestations.
Among these – and ostensibly subsequently accredited
by the Comelec to participate in the 2007 elections - are
14 party-list groups, namely: (1) BABAE KA; (2) ANG
KASANGGA; (3) AKBAY PINOY; (4) AKSA; (5) KAKUSA;
(6) AHON PINOY; (7) OFW PARTY; (8) BIYAHENG PINOY;
(9) ANAD; (10) AANGAT ANG KABUHAYAN;
(11) AGBIAG; (12) BANAT; (13) BANTAY LIPAD;
(14) AGING PINOY. Petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR
presented a longer, albeit an overlapping, list.
Subsequent events saw BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR filing
with the Comelec an Urgent Petition to Disqualify,
thereunder seeking to disqualify the nominees of
certain party-list organizations. Both petitioners appear
not to have the names of the nominees sought to be
disqualified since they still asked for a copy of the list of
nominees. Docketed in the Comelec as SPA Case No 07-
026, this urgent petition has yet to be resolved.
Meanwhile, reacting to the emerging public perception
that the individuals behind the aforementioned 14
party-list groups do not, as they should, actually
represent the poor and marginalized sectors, petitioner
Rosales, in G.R. No. 177314, addressed a letter 5 dated
March 29, 2007 to Director Alioden Dalaig of the
Comelec’s Law Department requesting a list of that
groups’ nominees. Another letter6 of the same tenor
dated March 31, 2007 followed, this time petitioner
Rosales impressing upon Atty. Dalaig the particular
urgency of the subject request.
Neither the Comelec Proper nor its Law Department
officially responded to petitioner Rosales’ requests. The
April 13, 2007 issue of the Manila Bulletin, however,
carried the front-page banner headline "COMELEC
WON’T BARE PARTY-LIST NOMINEES",7 with the
following sub-heading: "Abalos says party-list polls not
personality oriented."
On April 16, 2007, Atty. Emilio Capulong, Jr. and ex-
Senator Jovito R. Salonga, in their own behalves and as
counsels of petitioner Rosales, forwarded a letter 8 to the
Comelec formally requesting action and definitive
decision on Rosales’ earlier plea for information
regarding the names of several party-list nominees.
Invoking their constitutionally-guaranteed right to
information, Messrs. Capulong and Salonga at the same
time drew attention to the banner headline adverted to
earlier, with a request for the Comelec, "collectively or
individually, to issue a formal clarification, either
confirming or denying … the banner headline and the
alleged statement of Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. xxx"
Evidently unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was
the issuance of Comelec en banc Resolution 07-
07249 under date April 3, 2007 virtually declaring the
nominees’ names confidential and in net effect denying
petitioner Rosales’ basic disclosure request. In its
relevant part, Resolution 07-0724 reads as follows:
RESOLVED, moreover, that the Commission will
disclose/publicize the names of party-list nominees in
connection with the May 14, 2007 Elections only after
3:00 p.m. on election day.
Let the Law Department implement this resolution and
reply to all letters addressed to the Commission
inquiring on the party-list nominees. (Emphasis added.)
According to petitioner Rosales, she was able to obtain a
copy of the April 3, 2007 Resolution only on April 21,
2007. She would later state the observation that the last
part of the "Order empowering the Law Department to
‘implement this resolution and reply to all letters …
inquiring on the party-list nominees’ is apparently a fool-
proof bureaucratic way to distort and mangle the truth
and give the impression that the antedated Resolution of
April 3, 2007 … is the final answer to the two formal
requests … of Petitioners".10
The herein consolidated petitions are cast against the
foregoing factual setting, albeit petitioners BA-RA 7941
and UP-LR appear not to be aware, when they filed their
petition on April 18, 2007, of the April 3, 2007 Comelec
Resolution 07-0724.
To start off, petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR would
have the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the
Comelec to the respondent party-list groups named in
their petition on the ground that these groups and their
respective nominees do not appear to be qualified. In
the words of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR,
Comelec -
xxx committed grave abuse of discretion … when it
granted the assailed accreditations even
without simultaneously determining whether the
nominees of herein private respondents are qualified or
not, or whether or not the nominees are likewise
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented
sector they claim to represent in Congress, in
accordance with No. 7 of the eight-point guidelines
prescribed by the Honorable Supreme in the Ang
Bagong Bayani11 case which states that, "not only the
candidate party or organization must represent
marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also
must its nominees." In the case of private respondents,
public respondent Comelec granted accreditations
without the required simultaneous determination of the
qualification of the nominees as part of the
accreditation process of the party-list organization
itself. (Words in bracket added; italization in the
original)12
The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of
petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of
accreditation on the grounds thus advanced in their
petition. For, such course of action would entail going
over and evaluating the qualities of the sectoral groups
or parties in question, particularly whether or not they
indeed represent marginalized/underrepresented
groups. The exercise would require the Court to make a
factual determination, a matter which is outside the
office of judicial review by way of special civil action for
certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not
called upon to decide factual issues and the case must
be decided on the undisputed facts on record.13 The sole
function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of
want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and
does not include a review of the tribunal’s evaluation of
the evidence.14
Not lost on the Court of course is the pendency before
the Comelec of SPA Case No. 07-026 in which
petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR themselves seek to
disqualify the nominees of the respondent party-list
groups named in their petition.
Petitioners BA-RA 7941’s and UP-LR’s posture that the
Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it
granted the assailed accreditations without
simultaneously determining the qualifications of their
nominees is without basis. Nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is
there a requirement that the qualification of a party-list
nominee be determined simultaneously with the
accreditation of an organization. And as aptly pointed
out by private respondent Babae Para sa Kaunlaran
(Babae Ka), Section 4 of R.A. No. 7941 requires a
petition for registration of a party-list organization to
be filed with the Comelec "not later than ninety (90)
days before the election" whereas the succeeding
Section 8 requires the submission "not later than forty-
five (45) days before the election" of the list of names
whence party-list representatives shall be chosen.
Now to the other but core issues of the case. The
petition in G.R. No. 177314 formulates and captures the
main issues tendered by the petitioners in these
consolidated cases and they may be summarized as
follows:
1. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing
to reveal the names of the nominees of the
various party-list groups, has violated the
right to information and free access to
documents as guaranteed by the Constitution;
and
2. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated
by the Constitution to disclose to the public
the names of said nominees.
While the Comelec did not explicitly say so, it based its
refusal to disclose the names of the nominees of subject
party-list groups on Section 7 of R.A. 7941. This
provision, while commanding the publication and the
posting in polling places of a certified list of party-list
system participating groups, nonetheless tells the
Comelec not to show or include the names of the party-
list nominees in said certified list. Thus:
SEC. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties.- The
COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before
election, prepare a certified list of national, regional, or
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which have
applied or who have manifested their desire to
participate under the party-list system and distribute
copies thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling
places on election day. The names of the party-list
nominees shall not be shown on the certified
list. (Emphasis added.)
And doubtless part of Comelec’s reason for keeping the
names of the party list nominees away from the public
is deducible from the following excerpts of the news
report appearing in the adverted April 13, 2007 issue of
the Manila Bulletin:
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) firmed up
yesterday its decision not to release the names of
nominees of sectoral parties, organizations, or
coalitions accredited to participate in the party-list
election which will be held simultaneously with the May
14 mid-term polls.
COMELEC Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. … said he
and [the other five COMELEC] Commissioners ---
believe that the party list elections must not be
personality oriented.
Abalos said under [R.A.] 7941 …, the people are to
vote for sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions,
not for their nominees.
He said there is nothing in R.A. 7941 that requires the
Comelec to disclose the names of nominees. xxx (Words
in brackets and emphasis added)
Insofar as the disclosure issue is concerned, the
petitions are impressed with merit.
Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the
Comelec and the given rationale therefor is the right to
information enshrined in the self-executory 15 Section 7,
Article III of the Constitution, viz:
Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to
government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.
Complementing and going hand in hand with the right
to information is another constitutional provision
enunciating the policy of full disclosure and
transparency in Government. We refer to Section 28,
Article II of the Constitution reading:
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by
law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.
The right to information is a public right where the real
parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to be
precise. And for every right of the people recognized as
fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of
those who govern to respect and protect that right. This
is the essence of the Bill of Rights in a constitutional
regime.16 Without a government’s acceptance of the
limitations upon it by the Constitution in order to
uphold individual liberties, without an acknowledgment
on its part of those duties exacted by the rights
pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of Rights becomes a
sophistry.
By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can challenge
any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his right to
information and may seek its enforcement by
mandamus.17 And since every citizen by the simple fact
of his citizenship possesses the right to be informed,
objections on ground of locus standi are ordinarily
unavailing.18
Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to
information and its companion right of access to official
records are not absolute. As articulated in Legaspi,
supra, the people’s right to know is limited to "matters
of public concern" and is further subject to such
limitation as may be provided by law. Similarly, the
policy of full disclosure is confined to transactions
involving "public interest" and is subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need
of preserving a measure of confidentiality on some
matters, such as military, trade, banking and diplomatic
secrets or those affecting national security. 19
The terms "public concerns" and "public interest" have
eluded precise definition. But both terms embrace, to
borrow from Legaspi, a broad spectrum of subjects
which the public may want to know, either because
these directly affect their lives, or simply because such
matters naturally whet the interest of an ordinary
citizen. At the end of the day, it is for the courts to
determine, on a case to case basis, whether or not at
issue is of interest or importance to the public.
If, as in Legaspi, it was the legitimate concern of a citizen
to know if certain persons employed as sanitarians of a
health department of a city are civil service eligibles,
surely the identity of candidates for a lofty elective
public office should be a matter of highest public
concern and interest.
As may be noted, no national security or like concerns is
involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees
of the party-list groups in question. Doubtless, the
Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for a
list of the nominees of the party-list groups subject of
their respective petitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.
The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941 reading:
"[T]he names of the party-list nominees shall not be
shown on the certified list" is certainly not a justifying
card for the Comelec to deny the requested disclosure.
To us, the prohibition imposed on the Comelec under
said Section 7 is limited in scope and duration, meaning,
that it extends only to the certified list which the same
provision requires to be posted in the polling places on
election day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition
to the absolute is to read into the law something that is
not intended. As it were, there is absolutely nothing in
R.A. No. 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from
disclosing or even publishing through mediums other
than the "Certified List" the names of the party-list
nominees. The Comelec obviously misread the limited
non-disclosure aspect of the provision as an absolute
bar to public disclosure before the May 2007 elections.
The interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually
tacks an unconstitutional dimension on the last
sentence of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941.
The Comelec’s reasoning that a party-list election is not
an election of personalities is valid to a point. It cannot
be taken, however, to justify its assailed non-disclosure
stance which comes, as it were, with a weighty
presumption of invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a
fundamental right to information.20 While the vote cast
in a party-list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in
the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in
appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of
Representatives.
The Court is very much aware of newspaper reports
detailing the purported reasons behind the Comelec’s
disinclination to release the names of party-list
nominees. It is to be stressed, however, that the Court is CONSUELO
LEONARDO A.
in the business of dispensing justice on the basis of hard YNARES-
QUISUMBING
facts and applicable statutory and decisional laws. And SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
lest it be overlooked, the Court always assumes, at the Asscociate Justice
first instance, the presumptive validity and regularity of
official acts of government officials and offices.
ANGELINA
ANTONIO T.
It has been repeatedly said in various contexts that the SANDOVAL-
CARPIO
people have the right to elect their representatives on GUTIERREZ
Asscociate Justice
the basis of an informed judgment. Hence the need for Associate Justice
voters to be informed about matters that have a bearing
on their choice. The ideal cannot be achieved in a
system of blind voting, as veritably advocated in the (on leave)
(on leave)
assailed resolution of the Comelec. The Court, since the MA. ALICIA
RENATO C.
1914 case of Gardiner v. Romulo,21 has consistently AUSTRIA-
CORONA
made it clear that it frowns upon any interpretation of MARTINEZ
Asscociate Justice
the law or rules that would hinder in any way the free Associate Justice
and intelligent casting of the votes in an election. 22 So it
must be here for still other reasons articulated earlier.
CONCHITA ADOLFO S.
In all, we agree with the petitioners that respondent CARPIO MORALES AZCUNA
Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
release the names of the nominees of the party-list
groups named in the herein petitions.
MINITA V. CHICO-
DANTE O. TINGA
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 177271 is partly NAZARIO
Associate Justice
DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify the accreditation of Asscociate Justice
the respondents named therein. However, insofar as it
seeks to compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the
names of the nominees of party-list groups, sectors or ANTONIO
PRESBITERO J.
organizations accredited to participate in the May 14, EDUARDO B.
VELASCO, JR.
2007 elections, the same petition and the petition in NACHURA
Associate Justice
G.R. No. 177314 are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Asscociate Justice
Comelec is hereby ORDERED to immediately disclose
and release the names of the nominees of the party-list
groups, sectors or organizations accredited to CERTIFICATION
participate in the May 14, 2007 party-list elections. The
Comelec is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court its
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
compliance herewith within five (5) days from notice
certify that the conclusions in the above decision had
hereof.
been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
This Decision is declared immediately executory upon
its receipt by the Comelec.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

CANCIO C. GARCIA Footnotes

Associate Justice
1
 At least nine (9) party-list groups subject of
WE CONCUR: the second petition are respondents in the first
petition.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice 2
 G. R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA
698.
3
 ABS, Babae Ka, PEP, ANC, FPJPM, AAPS,
AANGAT ka Pilipino and KALAHI.

4
 AKSA.

5
 Annex "E," of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.

6
 Annex "F," of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.

7
 Petition (G.R. 177314), p. 8.

8
 Annex "G," of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.

9
 Annex " B," of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.

10
 Petition in G.R. SP. No.177314, p. 3.

11
 Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Part v.
Commission on Elections, Supra note 2.

12
 Page 5 of the petition in G. R. No. 177271.

13
 Pobre v. Gonong, G. R. No. L-60575, March
16, 1987, 148 SCRA 553.

14
 Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. CA,
G.R. No. 138270, June 28, 2001, 360 SCRA 173;
Oro v. Diaz, G.R. No. 140974, July 11, 2001, 361
SCRA 108.

15
 Gonzales v. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835, August
14, 2000, 337 SCRA 733.

16
 Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No.
L-72119, May 19, 1987, 150 SCRA 530, citing
Cooley.

17
 Tanada v. Tuvera, G. R. No. L-63915, April
24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27.

18
 Bernas, The Constitution of the Philippines:
A Commentary, 1996 ed., p. 334.

19
 Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December
9, 1998, 299 SCRA 744.

20
 Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong,  G.R.
No. L- 82380, April 29, 1988, 160 SCRA 861.

21
 G. R. No. L-8921, January 9, 1914, 26 Phil.
521.

22
 Rodriquez v. Commission on Elections, G. R.
No. L-61545, December 27, 1982, 119 SCRA
465.